This chapter deals with population growth. Evola postulates the view that reducing the population would help us towards "a relaxation and a decongestion that would limit every activist frenzy (first among them, those that pertain to the overall power of the economy) and greatly propitiate the return to normalcy, thanks to a new, wider, and freer space." The Anarchist thinker, Richard Hunt, believes that such a reduction can be achieved through implementing methods of birth control and thus lead us towards a more natural society, although, given the eventual collapse of internationalism capitalism, such a process would surely happen naturally in the wake of widespread conflict and famine? Evola, on the other hand, believes that "nothing is done about the population explosion, because then man would have to act upon himself, his prejudices and instincts." But he also criticises the purely materialistic analysis as espoused by Malthus, because the worst thing about population growth is not the increasing scarcity of resources but the acceleration of production and the rampant capitalist economy: "The result is an increasing enslavement of the individual and the reduction of free space and of any autonomous movement in modern cities, swarming as though in putrefaction with faceless beings of ‘mass civilisation'." Evola explains that there is no safety in numbers, a slogan that has become one of the watchwords of the modern epoch. Successful empires, he argues, arise not from population growth but from the intuitiveness and ability of an elite minority. Furthermore, geographical locations which find themselves subject to a large-scale increase in population soon run contrary to natural order: "The fact is that the inferior races and the lower social strata are the most prolific" and inevitably leads to "a fatal involution of the human race." Evola goes on to explain that the movement of peoples for the purposes of cheap labour - such as that presently taking place among those economic migrants currently flooding into the British Isles - means that "the fatal effects will be inner crises and social tensions representing manna from heaven for the leaders of Marxist subversion." No wonder, therefore, that we constantly see the likes of the Socialist Workers Party campaigning on behalf of these so-called "refugees."

At this point Evola launches a fierce broadside against Catholic opposition to birth control. He denies that procreation - which, in his opinion, is derived from Jewish sources - should have a religious or theological dimension, and believes that the Church is being hypocritical when it comes to encouraging the use of the sexual urge to create life: "In every other instance besides sex, the Church praises and formally approves . . . the predominance of the intellect and will over the impulses of the senses." Indeed, Catholicism does tend to relegate the act of sexual union to the level of an animalistic act which is considered necessary for procreation. Abstinence and celibacy, says Evola, are far more in tune with asceticism and the pursuit of the supernatural. At this stage in the debate, Evola has not even mentioned the use of contraception or abortion, so I would therefore agree with his alternative conclusions about the more sacred nature of chastity. Birth control, he argues, is a bourgeois concept and the New Man "by adopting an attitude of militant and absolute commitment, should be ready for anything and almost feel that creating a family is a ‘betrayal’; these men should live sine impedimentis, without any ties or limits to their freedom." This approachcertainly makes sense, but I also feel that there is a strong case for the perpetuation of the New Man through the foundation of alternative, revolutionary-conservative families which live in accordance with Tradition. Evola - inspired by Nietzsche’s idea that "men should be trained for war and women for the recreation of the warrior" - may indeed dismiss such a process as being little more than a form of "heroism in slippers," but such families can also act as a beacon and a source of inspiration for those warriors who remain unbound. Evola has considered the idea of elitist families, without doubt: "the example of those centuries-old religious orders that embraced celibacy suggests that a continuity may be ensured with means other than physical procreation. Besides those who should be available as shock-troops, it would certainly be auspicious to form a second group that would ensure the hereditary continuity of a chosen and protected elite, as the counterpart of the transmission of a political-spiritual tradition and worldview: ancient nobility was an example of this." However, he remains very sceptical and considers the revival of such an idea utopian because it would be difficult for a father to have control over his offspring amid the turmoil of the West. This is very true, but the increasing success of home-schooling in both America and the British Isles does prove that it is realistically possible to build a network of alternative families who reject the materialism of the West itself.

Evola’s solution is based upon the destruction of the egalitarian ideal and, perhaps more surprisingly, of adopting an open mind towards the possibility of a third world war. Any future conflict which is waged on such a vast scale would inevitably reduce the population, of course, but I believe that with the increasing collaboration taking place between the West and its subjugated puppet-states abroad, our real hope lies in the gradual disintegration of the internationalist system on the periphery. This process of detaching the children from the nanny, for better or for worse, will undoubtedly lead to the biggest death-toll the world has ever seen. Indeed, it will not be invoked by birth control programmes or inspired by government policy, it will actually lead to the removal of government itself.